Things in RPGs that you used to like but don’t anymore

[Anonymouswizard]

Huh.

I realized when running Shadowrun 4e a few years ago that I didn't entirely disagree with the idea of a "lighter" ruleset. Don't get me wrong, I like having rules, since I don't have to remember how I ruled or spend that effort when I could be running the world.

While it's years after it first came out, picking up Shadowrun: Anarchy has made me never want to play any other version. While I have done issues with it is much less of an accounting nightmare, and thanks to bundling spells, drones, cyberware, cyberdecks/technomamcy, and Adept powers into a single DIY 'special stuff' system building a character is no longer an exercise in minutia. If you want enhanced rejected there are two options you have to ask: how good are they, and are they cyberware, bioware, or magical. It also simplifies both the skill list and the meat space/astral/matrix nightmare, Although it has a couple of rules you might want to change (six skills maximum!?)

[Quertus]

"That which I love, I love forever."

Looking at other people's lists, I see nothing that I used to love, but no longer do.

The closest we get is things I used to say "meh" to, that got old. Like how every GM and his clone wanted to run a "you have to speak to the Sage / wise woman / healer / village idiot to learn that werewolves are vulnerable to silver". Yeah, no. My PCs were trained, and I keep track of who trained whom, and what lore they passed along.

I still love both tables and one-off mechanics for everything, and unified mechanics - *if* they're implemented well, and match the game.

I still love both minis / battle maps and theater of mind - *if* they're implemented well, and match the game.

I still love both piles of different dice and a single die - *if* they're implemented well, and match the game.

I still love both handwritten character sheets, and cool printed sheets. I also now like "index card" "sheets".

I still love physical books, and some of the artistry that went into old WoD books.

I still love the old editions of games that I loved, even for those rare systems where the newer editions are actually better.

I still love playing rules-heavy RPGs like 3e D&D with 7-year-olds, or playing multiple PCs simultaneously in a game that spans multiple systems, with kids, and watching them play competently.

"That which I love, I love forever."

[Jay R]

I started role-playing in 1975, with original D&D. I've played a lot of different ways. And based on my experience, what most people here are talking about simply doesn't matter that much.

If I know and trust the GM, then there is no mechanic, approach, or world that could possibly cause a problem.

If I don't know and trust the GM, then no mechanic, approach, or world that could make the game worth playing.

So the one thing I would not play anymore is poor GMs. In the last 20 years, I've only had one GM who hadn't been a close friend for years before the game started. And that one came with impeccable credentials from friends I did know and trust.

[Tanarii]

So the one thing I would not play anymore is poor GMs. In the last 20 years, I've only had one GM who hadn't been a close friend for years before the game started. And that one came with impeccable credentials from friends I did know and trust.

Interesting. I used to enjoy playing with people I know. Now I prefer to play with strangers, or at least initially strangers.

Of course, that's because strangers at a game store are making some kind of commitment, or else it's a game designed for pickup play. Home games with people I know never seem to last.

I've been playing 3 player Gloomhaven as part of a home game that has gone over 15 months, interrupted by the pandemic. That beats any home game RPG I've ever played for longevity by about 12 months.

[Maat Mons]

Numerical progression.

I used to delight in getting +1 to something. But I eventually realized that just meant I was now going to be facing enemies with +1 to the opposite thing. And so, relatively speaking, there had actually been no change at all.

[Pex]

Theater of the Mind combat

It's what I grew up with, but I have come to appreciate the extra layer of immersion that comes with using a battlemat. I'm not totally against Theater of the Mind. I used to DM that way, but in my current campaign I'm purposely trying to use the mat more. I can see the difference now on the DM side of things. It becomes easier to use tactics when you know where everything is. The more complex the battle the more difficult it is to keep everything in memory. The battlemat allows for very complex battles that are fun to play once in a while.

I want to play no matter what

In reference to the "It's what my character would do" thread, as long as I got to play I would tolerate anything. I had quit games way, way back when, but it took a long time of consistent anger and disappointment. Now I have learned that no gaming is better than bad gaming. I've learned to be ok with stop playing a game where I'm not having fun. I can still be sad about it, but I know and notice I am better off. I don't need that stress and tension.

[Tanarii]

It's what I grew up with, but I have come to appreciate the extra layer of immersion that comes with using a battlemat.

What extra layer of immersion? Battlemats remove immersion, they don't add to it.

They add to the ability to play tactically, but at the cost of immersive elements.

To elaborate on my confusion: The representation of the character by a miniature/token automatically creates a degree of "my guy" thinking about the character instead of "me" thinking. Thats a decrease on immersion, and its unavoidable.

[Zombimode]

Numerical progression.

I used to delight in getting +1 to something. But I eventually realized that just meant I was now going to be facing enemies with +1 to the opposite thing. And so, relatively speaking, there had actually been no change at all.

You know that is not a necessary correlation, right?

[Mastikator]

I started role-playing in 1975, with original D&D. I've played a lot of different ways. And based on my experience, what most people here are talking about simply doesn't matter that much.

If I know and trust the GM, then there is no mechanic, approach, or world that could possibly cause a problem.

If I don't know and trust the GM, then no mechanic, approach, or world that could make the game worth playing.

So the one thing I would not play anymore is poor GMs. In the last 20 years, I've only had one GM who hadn't been a close friend for years before the game started. And that one came with impeccable credentials from friends I did know and trust.

As much as I agree with this I think (at least for my sake) it behooves me to give bad GMs a chance to be better by identifying what I dislike and giving constructive criticism. If they're open to criticism and willing to improve then I may have bought myself a better game. If not I'll feel more justified.

Unless it's a total horror story.

[KineticDiplomat]

Magic.

Not the concept of any and all things magical, but the seemingly endless trend of trying to give players “cool” magic/psionics/insert-your-settings-name-for-magic-or-a-thinly-skinned-variant.

Yes, it seems cool, but then as a GM or a player you start finding that it is hell on a narrative, leads to ridiculous issues where you have to balance people flinging lightning from their fingertips with people with swords/guns (hint: you won’t succeed), and generally manages to slow down the game, make combat ridiculous, cheapen the setting, and turn things into the magic puzzle solving show.

When I think of virtually all of my favorite fiction, magic is never used to casually turn invisible while doing back flips while throwing disintegration rays around on the fly. And it’s definitely not so common that every fifth person is doing it.

I make exceptions for games premised on being nigh unto gods (or just plain gods), or perhaps entirely and only about magic users, but I’m at the point where anyone using magic in a”general” game is a matter for pause and consideration.

[Pex]

What extra layer of immersion? Battlemats remove immersion, they don't add to it.

They add to the ability to play tactically, but at the cost of immersive elements.

To elaborate on my confusion: The representation of the character by a miniature/token automatically creates a degree of "my guy" thinking about the character instead of "me" thinking. Thats a decrease on immersion, and its unavoidable.

We don't like the same thing about something? That's different.

I don't need to defend myself here.

[Willie the Duck]

Playing with jaded grognards. Yeah, I've been through all of these same tropes scads of times spanning multiple decades, just with a controller in hand, and now that I'm enjoying tabletop instead I've already run into a few folks who want to veto so many things that they're tired of. It was cool early on with my buds that had a lot of years of pencil & paper under their belts showing me the ropes, and I still like playing with those guys when I can, but other groups, especially online, always have that one curmudgeon who never moved on from whatever edition they started with and never passes up an opportunity to tell you how much better it was than the current version. Every time I hear, "ugh, Forgotten Realms again?" I get the impression that I'm not going to be allowed to enjoy the campaign, either. It's so much more fun playing with new people who engage with a sense of wonder at the possibilities before them, even if a lot of the ideas are old hat.

Speaking as a self-aware grognard (who hopefully isn't too jaded*), I'll agree that there are plenty of grognards out there that just want everyone to know that they were there first**. That said, please show as much sympathy as you can. As I've hit and rode headlong through middle age, I've been struck by how real the sensation are that society is telling you that you are old and in the way. I don't know how old you are, so I can't say you don't know, but I will say that it was a surprise for me. Wanting to feel like those things you did or cared for when you were young were important, and perhaps even special, is well, kinda natural (obviously less forgivable when that is weaponized, as it seems it has been in your experience).
*and when I am, it is more jaded at internet posturing than newfangled games.
**which isn't true, since Rob Kunze, Mike Mornard, and Ernie Gygax are all still alive and online.

I started role-playing in 1975, with original D&D. I've played a lot of different ways. And based on my experience, what most people here are talking about simply doesn't matter that much.

If I know and trust the GM, then there is no mechanic, approach, or world that could possibly cause a problem.

If I don't know and trust the GM, then no mechanic, approach, or world that could make the game worth playing.

So the one thing I would not play anymore is poor GMs. In the last 20 years, I've only had one GM who hadn't been a close friend for years before the game started. And that one came with impeccable credentials from friends I did know and trust.

In general, I think that is true -- a good GM can make a mechanic you don't love seem fine, and a bad GM can ruin the experience of the best system. There are few mechanics I won't deal with anymore. One exception is massive time sinks -- I'm thinking of games with dozens of tables of modifiers to every roll, or Excel spreadsheet level of creation rules (GURPS 3e Vehicle builder, as the ultimate example). Not because they are inherently good or bad, but simply because I don't have the time or energy to get out of them any value they might provide.

[Slartibartfast]

What extra layer of immersion? Battlemats remove immersion, [...] and its unavoidable.

No, it's avoidable, it is just a different perspective.

You have to ask the question "where am i? what is around me?" and then look at the mat and go "ah, there i am!"

Seeing the miniature as you or not you is a choice, not a necessity. You can twist your mind into all sorts of shapes of you try.

This leads me to my biggest RPG regret:

Self-insert Characters

Even when your are not literally playing yourself, i used to think that my character in the game was me. This is a terrible way to run a game. Your character is explicitly *not* you and this is part of what makes them interesting. They think different than you, they hold different values than you, they have different capabilities than you. Player / character separation is an important understanding to be aware of in order to make more interesting characters who tell more interesting and varied stories. If all your characters are you, you're going to be playing the same story one game after the next unless you change RP groups.

Plus, it leads to drama at the table if someone does something to my character - and that is me! Now *i* have been personally attacked! No, it's a game, stop being in it.

Simulation / Immersion

I used to think that the best way to participate as a player was to understand my character fully and react to the world as it was presented to them. This loses out on a lot of potential in the genre.

Fundamentally, RPs are telling a story. How many authors write a story without any idea where it's going or what the characters are for (narratively)? Definitely not all of them, i can tell you that. You can run a discovery game about the chaotic things your characters do, but you can also run a slightly more narratively structured experience.

I learned this lesson by running a game where each character had a well-defined but entirely open-ended narrative role: the Homestuck classpect. For example, the Bard of Doom brings about doom and destruction as a passive consequence of their existence. The character Kate was therefore vindictive, disruptive, and had a lot of options for collateral damage. This not only gave her a strong identity, but it gave the other players
(remember, not the characters) an understanding of what to expect from her and how to facilitate her narrative purpose.

I don't recommend classpects (the original Homestuck ones or campaign-specific versions) to everyone. They provide useful character building structure and narrative guidance, but they also require a certain mode of abstract alternate-philosophical thinking that isn't going to be for everyone. Instead, you can still achieve a similar effect simply by thinking not "what would my character do" but "what would be the coolest thing to happen, and what's a reasonable thing my character can do to work towards that?" Sometimes this means actively sabotaging your own character's goals by making them take "unexpectedly" counterproductive actions, and those can be great stories. Take advantage of player / character separation and do things which are good for the players, not the characters.

And remember that for this purpose, the GM is a player too! In a narrative game you are working with the GM, not against them. Yes, the GM is providing opposition, but this is in service of the story, not with the intention to defeat you. In a crunch game like Shadowrun that focuses mainly on the mechanical conflict between player and GM this doesn't work, but in a narrative game take advantage of that teamwork.

[Tanarii]

We don't like the same thing about something? That's different.

I don't need to defend myself here.

It's not a matter of like or not like. It's a matter of automatically creating less thinking of being the character. That's less immersive, by definition.

Personally I don't often don't like that, since player-character separation is an unnatural state of things, and it's impossible to eliminate / completely separate, so I generally prefer to minimize it where ever possible. But it's perfectly fine to like 3rd party characters.

[Pex]

It's not a matter of like or not like.

Yes it is because that's the thread question. It's not your place to tell me I'm wrong to like something for the reason I like it.

[RandomPeasant]

To elaborate on my confusion: The representation of the character by a miniature/token automatically creates a degree of "my guy" thinking about the character instead of "me" thinking. Thats a decrease on immersion, and its unavoidable.

And the presence of explicit markings of what's going on make it easier to grasp what's going on and become immersed in it. You're certainly free to feel that the tradeoff doesn't land the way you want; I'm not going to yuck your yum. But it seems pretty obvious to me what the argument for the other side is and from there it should be pretty easy to conclude "he must feel that argument is more compelling than I do".

[Spore]

When players started treating them like inviolable gospel it sucked the fun out of them and made them a chore.

It happened to 3.5, and it starts happening to D&D 5e. People pick up WILDLY imcompatible archetypes, ideas and rules from about 20 books to create the omegazilla cleric, a d2 crusader or a character that could grapple and supplex the planet. While cool ideas in their respective genres, they don't really gel always with the campaign world, in fact they most often do not.

People are starting to PICK Ravenloft's dark GIFTS for their characters on 1st level. Which is entirely not how this is supposed to happen. These are not drawbacks with benefits to pick during creations of a character. These are handed out for characters in a horror campaign, to provide some mystical benefit (in the absence of a magic mart et al.) for a thematic drawback THAT WILL COME UP. You don't get water themed spells and a fear of the seas in a game that is entirely set in a mystical forest. And I don't care if your character has a background as a sailor. You picked the sailor background, you will not get more boni just so I can see you being edgy about PTSD that cannot be triggered because the lack of environmental pieces.

On a similar vein, a DM helping me with gifts and gameplay benefits with a struggling build felt incredibly condescending to me, but it doesn't anymore. the DM is not looking to crush the internal balance, but to preserve it.

[Tanarii]

Yes it is because that's the thread question. It's not your place to tell me I'm wrong to like something for the reason I like it.

Okay then.

I like sittting around for hours playing RPGs while stuffing my face with soda and pizza because it is great exercise. But that doesn't mean I should get defensive about someone 'telling me my likes are wrong' if they object to me using the words in a strange way.

[Willie the Duck]

Okay then.

I like sittting around for hours playing RPGs while stuffing my face with soda and pizza because it is great exercise. But that doesn't mean I should get defensive about someone 'telling me my likes are wrong' if they object to me using the words in a strange way.

Eating pizza and soda isn't great exercise, and that state of affairs is clear and established fact understood by all reasonable potential thread participants. That battlemats remove immersion is a position you have taken, but not backed up. If you were to provide a substantive argument to that position, that would go a long way towards the two situations appearing to be similar.

[Anonymouswizard]

In personally finds that a map increases immersion, and a grid decreases it. Clearly I am insane for this illogical position

It helps to know roughly where everybody is in order to form a mental picture, but I don't need it in exact detail.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In personally finds that a map increases immersion, and a grid decreases it. Clearly I am insane for this illogical position

It helps to know roughly where everybody is in order to form a mental picture, but I don't need it in exact detail.

I'm basically the same. My preferences for "battlemaps" go
1. A whiteboard with shapes drawn on it and minis, using a ruler/tape measure as needed for distances. All distances assumed to be rough estimates, not precision things.
2. A VTT with a grid and tokens, but one that can be overriden so things aren't exactly locked to the grid.
3. A physical gridded battlemap, not strictly following the lines (ie being able to point things in any direction)[1]
4. No map at all, simple combats
5. Any grid that's strictly adhered to
6. No map at all, complex combats

[1] This is lower just because it gets in the way and you don't have as many automated tools to deal with things. Most of the downsides, few of the benefits.

[Imbalance]

Speaking as a self-aware grognard (who hopefully isn't too jaded*), I'll agree that there are plenty of grognards out there that just want everyone to know that they were there first**. That said, please show as much sympathy as you can. As I've hit and rode headlong through middle age, I've been struck by how real the sensation are that society is telling you that you are old and in the way. I don't know how old you are, so I can't say you don't know, but I will say that it was a surprise for me. Wanting to feel like those things you did or cared for when you were young were important, and perhaps even special, is well, kinda natural (obviously less forgivable when that is weaponized, as it seems it has been in your experience).

It's not directly an age thing, in my experience, though of course the longer one is alive the more time they will have invested in their hobbies. In the name of disclosure, I've walked this earth since before the Reagan administration, and have marveled at the rate of change I've been witnessing in the world. Not everybody shares that view, I know, but it does perplex me that anyone of any age can deny the constancy of change unless they are in the way. That's not to say that the past was not special to those of us who lived it, and my own youth was full of experiences that will always be important to me, but I often feel alone in my age group being comfortable with most reboots and reimaginings of the things I grew up with because I know that there was always room for improvement. Those things aren't sacred. I don't own them. I only own the memories I have of them.

My related experience is with HeroClix (yep, I was there first). It exists today in direct opposition to what the inventor of the combat dial designed it for. I hate it, it's not my game, and while I still gripe about it, I ultimately got out of the way instead of trying to force undue parameters around others who do like what it became. So, while I can sympathize, I won't be enthusiastic about having someone else's obsolete attitude limit my perspective about the things I enjoy.

It's not a matter of like or not like. It's a matter of automatically creating less thinking of being the character. That's less immersive, by definition.

By that logic, so is the dice, the character sheet, and the narration.

In personally finds that a map increases immersion, and a grid decreases it. Clearly I am insane for this illogical position

It helps to know roughly where everybody is in order to form a mental picture, but I don't need it in exact detail.

I must be crazy, too. There are various forms of it, but when you employ those tangible elements to set a scene the product is communication, which fosters shared immersion, which I thought was the point of playing with other people. If I'm wrong, I guess I can see where someone might get upset when they perceive that their specific fantasy is spoiled by scale and perspective.

[Tanarii]

Eating pizza and soda isn't great exercise, and that state of affairs is clear and established fact understood by all reasonable potential thread participants. That battlemats remove immersion is a position you have taken, but not backed up. If you were to provide a substantive argument to that position, that would go a long way towards the two situations appearing to be similar.

By definition, anything that makes us think of a situation as external to ourselves is a decrease in immersion.

I have noticed people frequently use 'immersive' when they mean 'engrossing'. For example, non-first-person video games and movies are engrossing. First-person ones can be immersive though. Books are engrossing, not immersive, except for some versions of choose your own adventure. Studying a language in the country of the native speakers is a good example of immersive too.

Edit: in response to a few of the other responses about diagrams, yes technically its the miniature or token representing a character seperate from the player which causes a decrease in immersion.

[Maat Mons]

Wait a minute. *Checks Merriam-Webster*

absorbing involvement

ENGROSSING

Okay, it could be a regional thing. *Checks Oxford English Dictionary*

Deep mental involvement in something.

Where are you getting this "internal/external" thing?

[OldTrees1]

Wizards and Sorcerers.

Generalist casters were cool, until I learned about specialist casters. Then I learned that specialist casters can have actually interesting class features while still being more balanced than the generalists.



PS: Sorry Tanarii, but I am yet another that finds maps more immersive than theater of the mind. The players can only see what the DM lets them see. For me, pictures like maps can describe relative position in more vivid detail than the same effort put into theater of the mind. With a map I can see much more through my PC's eyes than I can with theater of the mind. I think it is best to accept that the impact of maps on immersion is highly subjective.

[Chauncymancer]

If I know and trust the GM, then there is no mechanic, approach, or world that could possibly cause a problem.

If I don't know and trust the GM, then no mechanic, approach, or world that could make the game worth playing.

Ah but, are there mechanical, approach, or world design decisions that would improve or degrade your trust in a GM?

What extra layer of immersion? Battlemats remove immersion, they don't add to it.

It's not a matter of like or not like. It's a matter of automatically creating less thinking of being the character. That's less immersive, by definition.

Has it occurred to you that what creates even more disruption and distance is being in a combat with four other players, five monsters, two environmental effects, and having objects randomly and capriciously flickering in and out of existence because the median human's visual working memory can only hold the relative position of six to eight objects at a time, and 5+5+2=12?
<In which my response became inappropriately vitriolic.>

My related experience is with HeroClix (yep, I was there first). It exists today in direct opposition to what the inventor of the combat dial designed it for. I hate it, it's not my game, and while I still gripe about it, I ultimately got out of the way instead of trying to force undue parameters around others who do like what it became.

As someone who only knows one thing about HeroClix, and it's that you can use them as miniatures in a pinch, what exactly was so radical a change?

[RandomPeasant]

PS: Sorry Tanarii, but I am yet another that finds maps more immersive than theater of the mind. The players can only see what the DM lets them see. For me, pictures like maps can describe relative position in more vivid detail than the same effort put into theater of the mind. With a map I can see much more through my PC's eyes than I can with theater of the mind. I think it is best to accept that the impact of maps on immersion is highly subjective.

It seems like Tanarii has some idiosyncratic personal definition of "immersion" such that certain things can't be immersive. Because the position they're expressing seems pretty incomprehensible to me otherwise. It's not just that they personally feel one way about the tradeoff (a reasonable position for any tradeoff), it's that they don't seem to understand how anyone could feel the other way. And that's bizarre, because it's not like the argument for the other side is especially subtle. It's like a D&D player saying they don't understand how anyone could like Shadowrun. Maybe you don't like Cyberpunk peanutbutter in your Fantasy chocolate, but it should be fairly obvious that other people could like that and that the people who like Shadowrun presumably do.

Ah but, are there mechanical, approach, or world design decisions that would improve or degrade your trust in a GM?

Or more generally, it's not a binary. This type of sentiment seems to come from a notion that there are Good DMs and Bad DMs and Good DMs perfectly understand how to create a good game and Bad DMs have no understanding of how to create a good game. But the reality is that both Good DMs and Bad DMs are very rare. Most DMs (and most players) are average. They have a range of ideas for stuff they might like to do, and some of those ideas are good while others are bad. The point of rules is to provide structure so that ideas are executed well, and to provide guiderails against bad ideas (after all, it's not like the TTRPG Police will put you in jail if you don't follow the rules, they can only ever really be guidelines).

[OldTrees1]

It seems like Tanarii has some idiosyncratic personal definition of "immersion" such that certain things can't be immersive.

I think that is a bit unfair. Tanarii could be using the same dictionary standard definition as me. However I agree that our estimations of what is possible do differ (perhaps even to that extreme).

That is as deep as I will go. We might want to pull back to the topic at hand.



For example:
I don't dislike spellcasting yet, but I have grown fond of non casting mage features. Dread Necromancer's Charnel Touch for example.

[Hytheter]

Has it also occurred to you that your proliferation of extremely niche hot takes has a causal relationship to your inability to get your friends to enjoy games with you for more than three months at a time, and it's that you're actually a terrible, awful DM? And that if you approach the opinions of forumites with a little bit of humility and actually bothered to learn something, you might radically improve your games all the way to mediocrity? And then maybe your friends could stand to go longer than eight sessions with you before they can't go on any longer?

This seems pretty uncalled for.

[Saintheart]

In personally finds that a map increases immersion, and a grid decreases it. Clearly I am insane for this illogical position

Not at all, this is why MapTools has options to toggle the gridlines on and off!

More seriously, I do agree - even though I do like battlemaps if only for the wholly immature reason that I like pretty pictures. My favourite battlemaps are the ones where the grid is obscured behind bushes, treetops, etc, but is still there to give you a quick idea of the distances if you need them. The ugliest battlemaps are surely the ones where you feel like you're fighting behind chickenwire.

I have a hypothesis that if you are working with battlemaps, a grid's only really needed if the distances at which the battle is being fought are likely to have a significant impact on its resolution, e.g. an encounter that actually is starting with the closest combatants more than 60 feet apart and/or is being fought with long-ish ranged weapons and the like at close to range increment. Below that scale/range, grid references at the edges of the map are enough and are 'out of the way' enough to minimise the disruption to the game experience. Or consider changing the grid colour from default black to something that at least blends a bit with the terrain (most mapping programs should allow one to do this, albeit this won't be as practical with something like Excel and similar.)